[no subject]

["Larry Febo" <larryf@capital.net>]

>Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 09:28:34 PDT
>From: "Matthew Bonnan" <mbonnan@hotmail.com>
>To: dinosaur@usc.edu
>Subject: re: PARTICULAR sauropods aquatic?
>Message-ID: <19990902162835.31479.qmail@hotmail.com>


>I believe it was Kermac (195?) who showed that the pressure from water on
>sauropod lungs would have caused problems for the animals if they
habitually
>were completely submerged.  Comparing sauropods to whales is very
>problematic, not the least of which is the fact that whales habitually dive
>to great depths and have many special adaptations for this that were
>probably absent in sauropods.  I do not know how far the "blowhole" is from
>the lungs in cetaceans, but my guess is that this is shorter than the head
>to lung distance encountered in most sauropods.

I guess it`s hard to figure out what went on (physiologically speaking) when
all there is to study  are the bones. I mean, we aren`t even sure if
"Skippy" had a hepatic piston.

I wouldn`t think that neck length would matter all that much if it were held
in a more horozontal position. More important would be the diff in height
between nasal openings and lungs. But then,...what about Brachiosaurs, with
more upright necks?! I look at this feature, plus the location of the narial
openings high up on the head and ask...."What for??" The explaination that
jumps to mind, ( well,...my mind anyway...8^), is that it had to breath
above the surface while submerged,...and submerged deeply at that!

I`m inclined to think that they could have adapted to this
enviornment,....somehow. If whales could adapt, why not Sauropods? Didn`t
they have a longer period of time to do so??


>Studies by Peter Dodson et al. in the 1980s and continued since by other
>researchers have shown that sauropods are found in many different
>environments ranging from dry, terrestrial to relatively moist.
Personally,
>I have no problem with sauropods wading into water and even feeding there
at
>times.  However, completely submerged sauropods would seem to be impossible
>based on the laws of physics as we understand them.

Who knows what`s possible? Better yet,...who knows what`s impossible! I
wouldn`t use the term impossible when trying to interpret nature. Safer to
speak in terms of probabilities, and not be surprised when new evidence
comes in to overturn what is "commonly thought".